— 86 — 



in S. pulchricoma, in fact a quite similar specimen collected in the same locality 

 by one of the same collectors was named 5. pulchricoma by Warnstorf himself 

 in 1906. 



The question of S. amblyphyllum (Russow) H. Lindberg, 1903^ is a more 

 vexatious one and brings us at once into the whole problem of the close and still 

 critical segregates of S. recurvum. The basis for the separation was furnished 

 substantially by Russow, who proposed a division into four subspecies^ which 

 are by many European bryologists now treated as separate species. I am able 

 to recognize 5. pulchrum and S. halticum as distinct, though I have no quarrel 

 with those who prefer to call them varieties, and will discuss them later; to the 

 variety tenue I can not accord specific rank, and I will discuss it also later. With 

 this the four-fold division of Russow would seem to be accounted for, but Warn- 

 storf and others following him have made out of this a five-fold one. Russow 

 gave a name to each separate form, leaving nothing under the species without 

 subspecific name, his subspecies being mucronatum, amblyphyllum, halticum 

 and angusHfolium. The difference between the subspecies mucronatum and 

 amblyphyllum (as interpreted by Warnstorf and others) lay almost exclusively 

 in the triangular stem-leaves of mucronatum and the more Ungulate ones with 

 rounded or truncate apex of amblyphyllum. The variety pulchrum of Lindberg 

 (1880) was included within the subspecies mucronatum by Russow, but was 

 separated from it by Warnstorf as a fifth variety the same year.'^ In 1903 H. 

 Lindberg definitively recognized all five forms as species, even discarding the 

 old name 6". recurvum as of uncertain application, discarding mucronatum because 

 already used for a different species, and creating the new specific name 5. api- 

 culatum for this form.^ Roll has on the other hand consistently refused to re- 

 cognize 6". amblyphyllum as a species distinct from S. recurvum, and Warnstorf 

 had himself noted in 1891^ that both kinds of stem-leaves can be found on the 

 same stem, but now^*^ attempts to meet the difficulty by suggesting examining 

 the stem-leaves on slide without cover-glass. My observations on this point 

 force me to agree with Roll. I have had no difficulty in finding amblyphyllum 

 leaves on plants determined by Warnstorf as mucronatum, can find no other 

 character whatever to correlate with this one and am obliged to conclude that 

 the distinction is without taxonomic significance. 



The close relationship between S. recurvum and S. cuspidatum will call for 

 further comment when we reach the latter species. For the present S. fallax 

 Klinggraff, 1880 demands attention, as Warnstorf in his last work^^ has accre- 



5 In 1913 (North American Flora, XV, 16) I have erroneously accredited 5. amblyphyllum 

 as a specific name to Warnstorf (19 11). 



6 Sphagnologische Studien, ppff. 1890; this paper is generally cited as of 1889, but seems not 

 to have been actually pubhshed before 1890 (in Sitz.-ber. Nat. Ges. Dorpat, IX) as Dr. Barnhart 

 informs me; Jensen (De danske Sphagnum- Arter, 116) says he received his copy of the separate 

 reprint on February 14, 1890. 



7 Bot.'Gaz. XV. 2i8f. 1890. 



8 Lotos, LI, 127. 



9 Verh. d. bot. Ver. d. Prov. Brandenburg, XXXII, 217. 

 1" Pflanzenreich, 51 : 243. 1911. 



" Ibid., 2S2ff. 



